E 

675 

R43 

1872 

MAIN 


B  3  536  005 


The  present  campaign,  as  conducted 
by  the  Greeley  Democracy,  has   been 
campaign  of  slander  and  falsehood. 

From  the  inception  of  the  move 
ment  to  the  present  time  the  whole 
stock  in  trade  of  the  Liberal  party 
has  been  slander  and  personal  abuse 
Men  who  once  bore  the  reputation  01 
statesmen  have  abandoned  questions  of 
State  policy,  have  laid  aside  the  legiti 
mate  weapons  of  argument. 

Reaction  has  set  in.  Disgust  follows 
in  all  honest  minds  at  a  campaign  con 
ducted  in  such  a  manner.  Men  who 
assail  other's  motives  are  liable  to  have 
their  own  severely  criticised  and  exam 
ined.  How  far  some  of  these  Reform 
leaders  can  bear  such  process  can  be 
seen  in  the  following  pages.  They  have 
made  charges  without  number,  but  have 
failed  to  prove  a  single  one.  They  have 
raved  and  stamped  and  insisted,  but  the 
proof  has  not  been  given.  They  stand 
convicted  before  the  world  of  having  as 
serted  the  existence  of  facts  which  thev 
have  failed  to  prove.  We  propose  to  pre 
sent  a  few  facts  in  regard  to  these  re 
formers.  We  shall  accompany  our  as 
sertions  by  the  proof  and  leave  the  Amer 
ican  people  to  judge  of  its  sufficiency. 
We  leave  the  field  dr.'  personalities  to  our 
opponents  and  only  deal  with  transac 
tions  growing  out  of,  or  directly  con- 
nectecl  with,  their  official  record. 

LYMAX  TUuMBULL. 

A  model  reformer — A  questionable  act — 

Receives  a  $10,000  fee  as  attorney  for  the 

Government. 

Lyman  Trumbull,  United  States  Sen 
ator  from  Illinois,  is  one  of  the  leading 
reformers.  He  is  actively  engaged  in 
the  canvass  far  Mr.  Greeley,  and  in  the 
event  of  his  election  would  no  doubt  be 
called  to  fill  a  Cabinet  position.  That 
the  country  may  understand  the  kind  of 
reformation  which  he  would  inaugurate, 
we  present  the  leading  features  of  a 
transaction  which  is  not  based  on  rumor, 
but  proven  by  the  official  records,  The* 
following  letter  from  the  Attorney  Gen 
eral  will  explain  the  nature  of  the  case 
in  which  Mr.  Trumbull  appeared  as  at 
torney  for  the  Government: 

ATTORNEY  GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 
Washington,  Dec.  81,  1867. 

SIR:  I  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to 
case  No.  380  on  the  calendar  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  Unit'  d  States  for  this  term,  en 
titled  ex  parte  McCardle. 

It  appears  that  McCardle  was  arrested  by 
the  military  authorities  in  Mississippi  for  pub 
lishing  certain  articles  in  a  newspaper  of 
which  he  was  the  editor,  alleged  to  be  in  vio 
lation  of  the  reconstruction  acts.  Being  in 
military  custody,  a  military  commission  was 
ordered  to  try  him.  He  made  application  to. 


the  district  court  of  Mississippi  for  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus.  The  writ  was  granted,  a  re 
turn  made  by  the  officer  having  him  in  custo 
dy,  and  a  hearing  had.  and  the  decision  of 
the  district  judge  was  that  he  should  be  re 
manded  into  the  custody  of  the  military  au 
thorities.  From  this  decision  McCardle  has 
taken  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  Mr  Black,  who  appears  as 
counsel  for  McCardle,  yesterday  made  a  mo 
tion  before  the  Supreme  Court  to  have  the 
case  advanced  upon  the  docket  in  order  to  a 
speedy  hearing.  No  action  has  yet  been 
taken'by  the  court  upon  the  motion." 

I  do  not  propose  to  appear  in  the  case.  •  s 
tho  matter  appertains  to  your  Department,  I 
will  suggest,  to  you  the  propriety  of  en)  ploy 
ing  counsel  to  represent  the  parties  having 
McCardle  in  cu-tody,  so  that  the  ca>e  may 
receive  proper  attention  before  the  Supreme 
Court. 

i  have  Hie  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully, 
HENRY  STANBERY,  Attorney  (General. 

To  the  SECRETARY  OF  WAR  ad  interim. 

On  the  8th  of  January,  1868,  General 
Grant,  acting  as  Secretary  of  War,  ad 
dressed  a  note  to  Senator  Trumbull,  ask 
ing  him  to  appear  in  the  case  as  counsel 
for  the  War  Department.  Mr.  Trum 
bull  accepted  the  brief  on  the  llth,  and 
on  the  22d  of  the  same  month  addressed 
a  note  to  Matthew  H.  Carpenter,  re 
taining  his  legal  services  in  the  same 
case.  On  the  28d  of  March,  1868  Mr. 
Stanton  addresses  a  note  relative  to  the 
case  to  Mr.  Trumbull,  infoiming  him  of 
the  court's  assigning  a  day  to  hear  the 
Georgia  case. 

We  have  thus  given  all  the  accessible 
facts  connected  with  the  case  down  to 
the  day  of  the  trial.  From  the  corre 
spondence  published  we  may  infer— 

1st.  That  the  Secretary  of  War  ad  in 
terim,  being  a  soldier  and  not  a  lawyer, 
wished  to  secure  the  advice  of  Mr. 
Trumbull  as  a  professional  man,  so  that 
the  case  should  not  be  neglected. 

2d.  That  Mr.  Trurabull  not  having 
the  time  to  devote  to  the  case  was  au 
thorized  to  call  ift  Mr.  Carpenter  and 
Judge  Hughes. 

3d.  That  Mr.  Carpenter  and  Judge 
Elughes  were  the  only  attorneys  in  the 
case  who  were  legally  entitled  to  receive 
fees  from  the  Government. 

4th.  That  Mr.  Stanton  gave  his  advice 
ind  supervision  in  the  case  without  ex- 
>ectation  of  reward,  and  Mr.  Trumbull 
lad  no  more  legal  right  to  a  fee  than  Mr. 
Stanton  himself. 

The  proceedings  before  the  Supreme 
3ourt  were  simple,  and  occupied  but  lit- 
le  time.  Mr.  Carpenter  made  the  argu- 
nent,  and  throughout  appears  to  have 
icted  as  the  counsel-in-chief.  Anticipa- 
,ing  an  unfavorable  decision,  Mr.  Trnm- 
bull  hastened  to  frame  an  amendment 
o  a  bill  then  pending  in  the  House. 


The  bill  was  passed,  vetoed  by  Mr.  John 
son,  and  again  passed  over  his  objection. 
This  bill  confined  jurisdiction  in  all  such 
cases  as  MeCardles  to  the  United  States 
circuit  and  district  courts.  If  it  had 
passed  when  first  urged  by  the  friends  of 
the  reconstruction  acts  it  would  have 
rendered  the  professional  services  of  Mr. 
Trumbull  unnecessary,  and  disturbed 
his  title  to  the  $10,000  fee.  But  the 
measure  he  had  opposed  before  the  argu 
ment,  he  favored  after  it,  and  its  final  pas 
sage  saved  the  Government  from  humili 
ation,  and  accomplished  what  the  Su 
preme  Co  art  would  have  probably  denied. 

In  reviewing  the  case  we  are  forced  to 
the  following  conclusions: 

1st.  The  Secretary  of  War  had  the 
rigl.it  to  call  upon  Mr.  Trumbull  or  any 
other  Senator  for  professional  advice. 

2d.  Mr.  Trumbull  had  the  right  to  give 
such  advice,  or  decline  giving  it,  but  had 
no  legal  or  moral  right  to  collect  a  fee 
for  his  services. 

3d.  The  fee  was  not  only  illegal,  but 
was  an  exorbitant  one,  unwarranted  on 
the  grounds  of  labor  performed  or  the 
importance  of  the  case. 

We  claim  that  the  acceptance  of  this 
fee  by  Mr.  Trumbull  was  contrary  to  law. 
We  base  our  claim  on  the  statute  of 
April  21,  1808,  forbidding  members  of 
Congress  entering  into  contracts  with 
the  Government,  and  the  opinion  given 
thereon  by  William  Wirt,  formerly  At 
torney  General  of  the  United  States, 
and  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  of  his 
time.  This  opinion  covers  a  case  simi 
lar  to  that  of  Mr.  Trumbull's,  and  is  so 
clear  and  explicit  that  we  give  it  in  full: 
ATTORNEY  GENEKAL'S  OFFICE, 
July  18, 1826. 

SIR:  The  question  which  you  submit  for  my 
opinion  is  whether  your  employment  of  mem 
bers  of  Congress  as  assistant  counsel  to  the 
district  attorneys  of  the  United  States  be 
within  the  prohibitions  of  the  act  of  April  21, 
1808,  "concerning  public  contracts?" 

I  am  entirely  satisfied  that  this  sort  of  en 
gagements  was  not  within  the  view  of  Con 
gress  when  the  act  was  passed,  but  that  the 
species  of  contracts  which  led  to  its  passage 
were  of  a  different  character,  as  stated  in  the 
report  of  a  select  com  mittee  of  the  29th  March, 
1822,  upon  the  subject  of  the  employment  of 
a  Senator  of  the  UnitedTftates  in  the  exami 
nation  of  certain  land  offices  in  Ohio,  &c. 
The  practice,  too,  in  several  instances  stated 
in  that  report  seems  to  have  limited  the  con 
struction  of  the  act  to  the  specific  species  of 
contracts  which  were  known  to  have  led  to 
its  enactment.  But  yet,  the  language  of  the 
law  is  so  broad  and  so  explicit,  nut  only  in  its 
positive  enactments,  but  in  its  exceptions; 
and  its  policy,  too,  is  so  broad  and  general, 
that  1  cannot  discover  any  satisfactory  dis 
tinction  by  which  the  contracts  in  question 
can  be  withdrawn  from  irs  operation. 

The  first  section  forbids  all  contracts  be 
tween  officers  of  the  Government  and  mem 
bers  of  Congress.  It  is  true  that  the  language 
of  this  section  seenn,  for  the  most  part,  to  be 
applicable  only  to  the  kind  of  contracts  which 
produced  the  law;  and  had  the  question  rested 
on  this  section  only,  there  would  have  been 
good  ground  for  confining  the  operation  of 


the  act  to  those  kinds  of  contracts  to  which  if 
owes  its  origin.  But  the  second  reflects  p 
larger  construction  on  the  first,  by  excepting 
from  its  action  a  species  of  contract  as  far  re 
moved  from  the  natural  sense  of  the  first  sec 
tion  as  the  kind  of  engagements  now  in  ques 
tion,  to  wit,  the  purchase  of  billsof  exchange 
from  members  of  Congress.  The  exception 
proves  that  Congress  intended,  by  the,  first 
section,  to  use  language  broad  enough  to 
cover  the  excepted  cases;  and  that  hence  it 
was  necessary  to  introduce  the  positive  ex 
ception.  Now,  if,  as  is  thus  implied  by  the 
Legislature  itself,  the  first  section  is  bioad 
enough  to  comprehend  the  sale  of  bills  of  ex 
change,  I  see  not  why  it  is  not  broad  enough 
to  comprehend  the  sale  of  professional  ser 
vices  or  any  other  species  of  work  and  labor, 
in  any  other  alt,  mystery,  or  science,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  law.  And  again,  if  the  prohibi 
tions  do  not  extend  to  engagements  for  pro 
fessional  services  with  gentlemen  of  the  law, 
do  they  extend  to  engagements  with  gentle 
men  of  the  medical  faculty?  If  not,  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  might  be  stationed  as  a  sur 
geon  at  a  military  post,  on  an  annual  stipend, 
without  any  violation  of  the  law. 

But  let  us  pursue  the  inquiry  one  step  fur 
ther.  The  second  section  of  the  act  having 
expressly  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the 
law  two"  cases  only,  to  wit,  contracts  with 
corporations,  and  the  purchase  of  bills  of  ex 
change,  the  fourth  section  uses  the  following 
pointed  and  comprehensive  terms  :  "That  if 
any  officer  of  the  United  States,  in  behalf  of 
the  United  .States,  shall,  directly  or  indirect 
ly,  make  or  enter  into  any  contract,  bargain, 
or  agreement,  in  writing  or  otherwise,  gther 
than  such  as  are  herein  excepted,  with  any 
member  of  Congress,  such  officers  so  offend 
ing,"  &c.  Now,  I  think  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  an  engagement  with  a  gentleman  of  the 
bar,  whereby,  for  a  valuable  consideration, 
he  is  to  render  his  professional  services  in  a 
given  case,  is  a  contract,  a  bargain,  an  agree 
ment,  in  the  legal  sense  of  these  terms,  (and 
in  aone  other  are  they  to  be  regarded;)  and 
it  is  a  bargain,  contract,  or  agreement,  other 
than  the  two  which  had  been  previously  ex 
cepted  by  the  act.  It  is  therefore  a  contract 
forbidden  expressly  by  the  fourth  section  of 
the  act. 

Should  it  be  objected  that  this  is  sticking  in 
the  letter  of  the  law  to  the  disregard  of  its 
policy,  I  cannot  accede  to  the  objection. 

The  policy  of  the  law  is  to  prevent  the  exer 
cise  of  the  executive  influence  over  the  mem 
bers  of  Congress  by  the  means  of  contracts  ; 
and  whether  the  contract  be  for  the  service  of 
a  lawyer,  a  physician,  or  a  mail-carrier,  an 
army  purveyor 'or  a  turnpike-road  maker,  it 
seems  to  me* to  be  equally  within  th  >  policy 
and  mischief  of  the  law.  The  only  difference 
is  in  the  permanency  of  the  engagement, 
but  a  succession  of  single  engagements  is 
quite  as  mischievous  as  a  contract  in  solido, 
and  if  the  distinction  is  to  be  allowed,  the 
law  might. easily  be  evaded. 

Finally,  even  if  the  construction  of  the  law 
were  dubious,  yet,  as  executive  officers,  it 
would  become  us  to  remember  that  it  is  a 
remedial  law,  enacted  as  a  bar  to  executive 
influence;  that,  in  the  construction  of  all  such 
lavvs,  the  rule  is  to  give  them  a  large  con 
struction  for  the  advancement  of  the  remedy 
and  the  suppression  of  the  mischief;  and  that 
it  is  much  safer  to  err  on  the  side  of  forbear 
ance  than  on  that  of  possible  endrdachnaeat. 

WM.  WIKT. 

The  POSTMASTER  GENERAL. 


3 


If  arwf  additional  evidence  is  required 
to  prove  the  illegality  of  Mr.  Trumbull's 
transaction,  we  refer  our  readers  to  the 
act  of  August  23,  1842.  We  call  atten 
tion -to  the  plain  language  of  that  law: 

"No  officer  in  any  branch  of  the  public 
service,  or  any  other  person  whose  salani, 
pay,  or  emoluments  is  or  are  fixed  by  law 
or  regulation,  shall  receive  any  additional 
pay,  extra  allowance,  or  compensation, 
in  any  form  whatever  >  for  the  disburse 
ment  of  public  money  or  for  any  other 
service  or  duty  whatsoever^  unless  the  same 
ail  all  be  authorized  by  law  and  the  ap 
propriation  therefor  explicitly  set  forth 
that  it  is  for  such  additional  pay,  extra 
allowance,  or  compensation." — 5  Suit. 
U.  S.i  510,  2  section. 

It  is  sufficient  to  add  that  Mr.  Trum 
bull's  services  for  pay  were  not  only  not 
authorized  by  law,  but  expressly  forbidden. 
lie  had  the  right  to  volunteer  his  ser 
vices,  but  no  right  to  claim  "extra  com 
pensation"  for  the  same.  The  records 
of  the  War  Department  show  that  he 
received  for  his  slight  services  $10,000, 
and  this  during  a  session  of  Congress 
while  receiving  pay  as  Senator  of  the 
United  States. 

We  leave  these  facts  in  the  hands  of 
the  people.  No  one  can  doubt  the  im 
propriety  of  the  transaction  on  Mr. 
Trumbull's  part,  and  few  of  his  most  ar 
dent  friends  can  defend  its  legality.  As 
a  prominent  reformer  it  must  seriously 
impair  his  usefulness  and  tend  to  shake 
the  confidence  of  the  public  in  the  move 
ment  he  is  leading.  A  transgressor  of 
the  law  himself,  his  testimony  against 
others,  can  have  but  little  weight.  The 
nation  has  already  passed  judgment  upon 
him,  and  when  his  present  term  shall 
close  in  the  Senate  the  voice  of  his  native 
State  will  be  heard:  "Lyman  Trumbull, 
you  have  been  weighed  in  the  balance 
arid  found  wanting  " 

CAUL  SCIIURZ. 

Speculation  in  land — Sad  faith  on  his 
part — Making  money  at  the  expense  of 
others — Minister  to  Spain — Receives  $12,- 
3i/7.68 /or  his  services — Athis  post  of  duty 
Jive  months  and  six  days — Still  owes  the 
'Government  $1,012.82—^1  model  re 
former. 

The  Illinois  Staats  Zeitung,  a  leading 
German  paper  in  Chicago,  gives  the  his 
tory  of  a  land  speculation  entered  into 
in  1855  by  Carl  Sch-urz.  The  principal 
features  of  this  dishonest  transaction  are 
as  follows: 

In  1855  Schurz  purchased  eighty-three 
acres  of  land  situated  near  Watertown, 
Wisconsin,  for  $10,000.  He  paid  in  cash 
$1,500  and  mortgaged  the  property  as  se 
curity  for  the  balance.  He  afterwards 
executed  a  second  mortgage  to  secure 
the  payment  of  $3,200  to  one  F.  A.  Hoff 
man, of  Chicago,  from. -whom  he  borrowed 
that  amount.  The  first  mortgage  was 
held  by  John  Jackson,  of  Brandon,  Ver- 


divided  the  land,  laid  it  out  in  lots,  and 
called  it  "Schurz's  addition  to  the  city 
of  Watertown."  These  lots  were  placed 
on  the  market,  but  no  record  was  made 
of  the  division  on  the  city  record  book, 
while  the  mortgages  were  recorded  at 
the  office  of  the  recorder  in  Juneau, 
Dodge  county,  eighteen  miles  away.  Sev 
eral  lots  of  this  plat  were  sold  by  Schurz. 
/Vmoiig  the  purchasers  were  George  W. 
Perry  who  paid  8600,  G.  Hi Idermann  $150, 
John  Spiegelberg  $150,  John  McDonald 
8150,  and  Ferdinand  Mailer  8150.  He 
nlso  sold  the  right  of  way  to  the  Chicago 
and  North  western  Railroad  Company  for 
$2,500.  The  money  for  these  sales  was 
paid  to  Schurz  and  receipted  for  by  him. 
The  lots  sold  wej*e  in  the  deed,  marked, 
numbered,  and  described  on  the  plat  of 
said  "addition"  assurveyed  by  one  Henry 
Steeger,  and  "  duly  recorded  in  the  office  of 
the  register  of  deeds  in  and  for  the  county 
of  Jefferson. "  JSTo  such  record  was  in  exist 
ence.  It  was  further  agreed  on  the  part 
of  Schurz  "thatthe premises  above  described 
are  free  from  all  incumbrances  whatever.  " 

In  the  year  1867  the  mortgage  on  this 
property,  (covering  the  lots  which  had 
been  sold  with  the  express  agreement  that 
they  were  free  from  encumbrance)  was 
foreclosed.  The  purchasers  mentioned 
above,  lost  their  land  and  with  it  the 
money  they  paid  to  Schurz.  John  Spiegel- 
berg  not  only  lost  his  lot  but  the  house 
he  had  erected  thereon  at  a  cost  of  8600. 

These  facts  which  bear  on  their  face 
dishonesty  and  fraud,  are  corroborated 
by  Colonel  Wedelstaedt,  editor  of  the 
Missouri  Stuats  Zeitung,  also  by  the  affi 
davits  of  those  victimized  by  and  familiar 
with  the  transaction. 

Emil  Rothe,  formerly  justice  of  the 
peace  in  Watertown,  Wisconsin,  who  had 
certified  to  the  deeds  of  said  lots  and  who 
is  now  acting  as  editor  of  the  Volks- 
freund,  a  Gfreeley  organ  in  Cincinnati, 
makes  no  attempt  to  deny  the  alleged 
facts,  but  excuses  the  action  of  Mr. 
Schurz  on  the  ground  that  he  became 
involved  in  the  crisis  of  1857  and  was 
unable  to  carry  out  his  agreement. 

Colonel  Wedelstaedt,  of  St.  Louis,  who 
made  a  personal  investigation  into  the 
facts  while  on  a  visit  to  Watertown,  re 
plies  to  this  defense  that  Carl  Schurz  is 
in  no  way  excusable,  as  he  had  oi-nitteA 
to  record  the  subdivision  of  the  plat, 
sold  said  lots  as  being  properly  recorded 
when  such  was  not  the  fact,  received  the 
money,  and  has  ever  since  refused  to  re 
fund  the  amount  to  those  who  lost  their 
property  through  his*  failure  to  carry  out 
the  agreement  into  which  he  had  entered. 
Facts  like  these  tell  their  own  story  and 
are  but  samples  of  others  that  have  been 
given  attesting  to  the  same  facts: 

WATEUTOWN,  August  29,  1872. 
STATE  OF  WISCONSIN,  County  tf  Jefferson: 

On  the  twenty- ninth  day  of  August,  1872, 
there  appeared  before  me  Amos  Baum,  a 
notary  public  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin, 
George  W.  Perry,  of  this  city  and  State,  and 


On  the  first  day  of  November,  in  the  year 
of  1856,  I  bought  from  Carl  Schurz,  then  a 
resident  of  Watertown,  Wisconsin,  a  certain 
parcel  of  ground  known  and  designated  as 
lots  No.  one,  two,  three,  and  four,  in  block 
No.  12  of  Carl  Schurz's  addition  to  Water- 
town.  I  paid  for  these,  designated  pieces  of 
ground  the  sum  of  six  hundred  dollars  cash 
in  hand,  and  received  from  said  Carl  Schurz 
a  warranty  deed.  Knowing  at  the  time  tint 
there  was  an  incuuiberance  on  these  parcels 
of  ground,  1  trusted  and  bought,  in  good 
faith,  upon  the  promise  given  by  said  Carl 
Schurz, 'that  he  would  remove  and  pay  off 
said  incumbrance.  Carl  Schurz  stated,  over 
his  own  signature  in  the  deed,  that  the  desig 
nated  pieces  of  ground  were  legally  survey- 
ed,  laid  out,  and  the  plat  duly  recorded  in  the 
recorder's  office  of  the  county.  To  this  state 
meat,  the  then  justice  of  the  peace,  Emil 
Rothe,  certified.  Carl  Schurz,  however,  did 
not  keep  his  promise  to  lift  said  incumbrance, 
nor  did  he  have  the  plat  recorded,  as  the  law 
prescribes,  and  the  holder  of  the  mortgages 
ou  said  property,  Mr.  John  Jackson,  fore 
closed  said  mortgages,  and  had  the  property 
sold  through  the  sheriff,  on  the  first  day  of 
April,  1867.  Two  years  before  this  time  I 
found  that  Carl  Schurz  had  never  paid  mort 
gage,  interest,  nor  taxes,  and  as  I  found  that 
I  would,  by  this  manipulation,  be  thrown  out 
of  the  title  of  the  pieces  of  land  [bought  from 
Schurz,  and  had  paid  for,  I  went  to  work  and 
was  only  able  to  regain  legal  possession  and 
title  again  by  paying  $250  to  the  above  named 
John  Jackson  under  a  compromise. 

GEO.  W.  PERRY. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  30th 
day  of  August,  1872.  AMOS  B\UM, 

Notary  Public,  Wisconsin. 
HUSTBRFORD,  August  29.  1872. 
COUNTY  OF  DODGE.  State  of  Wisconsin: 

John  Spit-gelberg,  a  citizen  of  Husterford 
township,  county  of  Dodge,  and  State  of 
Wisconsin,  personally  known  to  me,  appears 
before  me  John  G-.  Daily,  a  justice  of  the  peace 
and  notary  public  of  'the  county  of  Dodge, 
State  of  Wisconsin,  and  depose  h  as  follows: 

I,  John  Spiegel  berg,  citizen  of  the  State  of 
Wisconsin,  bought  in  the  year  of  1857  from 
Carl  Schurz  a  certain  lot  known  and  desig 
nated  as  lot  No.  4,  in  block  13,  of  Carl  Schurz's 
addition  to  Watertown.  I  paid  for  this  lot 
th«  sum  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  in 

gold.  Carl  Schurz  promising  and  pledging 
imself  again  and  again  that  he  would  pay 
off  the  mortgage  on  his  place  of  which  he  sold 
a  parcel  to  me.  This  transaction  was  made 
in  good  faith  on  my  part.  I  went  to  work, 
improved  said  lot,  built  a  house  upon  it, 
which  cost  me  nearly  six  hundred  dollars, 
and  believed  the  representations  of  Carl 
Schurz  so  much  easier  as  he  *vas  a  country, 
man  of  mine.  I  held  possession  of  this,  my 
property,  until  the  year  1867,  when  the  whole 
tract,  of  which  the  lot  I  bought  was  a  parcel, 
was  sold  by  the  sheriff  under  a  mortgage  and 
debts,  which  Carl  Schurz  had  incurred,  and  1 
was  not  only  depossess^d  of  my  lot,  but  also 
lost,  my  bouse  and  home  for  which  I  had  paid, 
worked,  and  labored  for  years  to  pay  back 
some  money  I  borrowed  when  1  built  my 
house.  This  sudden  calamity  which  befel  me. 
through  the  meanness  and  knavery  of  Carl 
Schurz,  has  not  only  caused  the  above  stated 
loss  to  me,  but  did  also  bring  me  upon  the 
brink  of  ruin  at  the  time,  so  much  more  keenly 
felt  by  me,  as  [  then  had  a  large  family  of 
small  children,  who  wtre  thus  deprived 'of  a 
shelter  and  koine. 


I  forgot  to  state  that  Carl  Schurz  did  make 
out  a  warranty  deed  signed  by  him  and  his 
wife,  and  handed  this  deed  to  me  at  the  time 
I  paid  the  money  over  to  him 

JOHN"  SPIEGELBER^. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me  this  29th 
day  ot  August,  1872. 

JOHN/  U.  DAILY,  Notary  Public. 

,Carl  Schurz  is  one  of  the  most  active 
and  unscrupulous  leaders  of  the  sham 
reformers.  He  has  arraigned  the  Presi 
dent  for  making  unworthy  appointments, 
but  makes  no  mention  of  those  that  were 
recommended  and  approved  by  himself. 
To  show  the  character  of  the  man  for 
whom  he  has  exerted  his  influence  for 
certain  consideration,  we  have  but  to 
mention  the  name  of  Lusisky,  of  St. 
Louis.  According  to  the  Missouri  Staats 
Zeitung,  this  gentleman  was  a  candidate 
for  reelection  as  city  treasurer.  He  paid 
Mr.  Schurz  $1,000  for  his  influence  and 
support,  uand  received  the  same.  He  was 
reflected,  proved  to  be  a  defaulter  to  the 
amount  of  $150,000,  and  is  now  serving 
his  term  of  imprisonment  in  the  State 
penitentiary.  Though  it  is  morally  cer 
tain  that  the  money  paid  to  Mr.  Schurz 
belonged  to  the  city  treasury,  he  has 
shown  no  desire  to  return  it. 

His  career  as  Minister  to  Spain  proves 
him  to  he  in  need  of  reformation  him 
self.  He  arraigns  the  President  for  be 
ing  absent  from  his  post  of  duty,  yet  his 
own  record  shows  that  while  Minister  to 
Spain  hedrevya  year's  salary  for  five 
months  and  six  days  actual  service  ren 
dered  by  him.  The  facts  which  prove 
this  are  of  official  record  and  cannot  be 
denied.  He  commenced  to  draw  pay  as 
Minister  from  March  28,1861.  He  ar 
rived  at  his  post  July  12,  1861,  and  re 
turned  home  on  a  three  months'  leave  of 
absence,  December  17,  1861.  For  his 
services  as  Minister,  five  months  and  six 
days,  and  his  three  months'  leave  of  ab 
sence,  making  in  all  eight  months  and 
six  days,  together  with  contingent  ex 
penses,  $978  40,  he  was  allowed  by  the 
Government  $11, 294  86,  whereas  lie  drew 
$12,307  68.  His  accounts  have  been  aud 
ited  at  the  Treasury  Department,  and 
the  amount  overdrawn,  $1,012  82,  stands 
as  a  charge  against  him.  Although  this 
overpayment  was  known  by  him  at  the 
time,  1862,  tie  has  not  to  the  present  date 
paid  over  this  balance  to  the  Govern 
ment.  It  is  probable  that  a  suit  will  be 
entered  against  him  for  the  recovery  of 
this  amount. 

It  may  be  .mentioned  as  illustrating  a 
peculiar  characteristic  of  Mr.  Sohurz, 
that  while  he  was  at  home  doing  noth 
ing  he  was  careful  to  draw  on  Baring 
Bros.  &  Co.  for  his  salary.  Bv  this  means 
he  secured  payment  in  gold  while  our 
noble  defenders  in  the  field  were  forced 
to  accept  their  pay  in  depreciated  cur 
rency.  Yet  Mr.  Schurz  is  a  leading  re 
former  and  makes  honesty  and  fair  deal 
ing  texts  for  his  public  speeches.  Is  he 
competent  to  preach  what  he  has  failed 
to  practice?  


JAMES  E.  DOOLITTLE.  ] 

The  Senator's  speculation  in  cotton — How 
he  secured  a  quarter  interest —  Wlir.it  lie 
knoivs  of  his  own  fidelity — A  model  re 
former  and  letter  writer. 
James  R.  Doolittle,  of  Wisconsin,  is 
another  reformer,  laboring  zealously  for 
the  election  of  Mr.  Greeley.  Like  Trum- 
bull  and  Scliurz,  he,  too,  strikes  the  hitrh 
notes  on  honesty  and  official  i  n  tegrity.  He 
won  his  first  honors  during  the  impeach 
ment  trial  of  An  drew  Johnscta,  failed  soon 
after  to  secure  a  re-election  to  the  United 
States  Senate,  and  has  since  led  a  pre 
carious  political  existence  among;  the 
Democrats  of  hisown>tate.  The  Liberal 
movement  opened  a  new  door  for  his  po 
litical  ambition,  and  he  was  not  slow  to 
enter  it.  Like  other  distinguished  re 
formers,  he  has  made  a  wrtue  of  neces 
sity,  and  hopes  through  the  Confederate 
party  to  regain  what  he  lost  with  the 
Republicans,  and  obtain  what  he  has 
failed  to  get  from  the  Democrats.  We 
shall  present  a  single  chapter  from  his 
life  as  a  Senator,  leaving  the  people  to 
judge  of  his  purity  as  a  reformer  and  his 
honesty  as  an  official.  The  letters  which 
we  print  were  taken  from  the  original,  in 
bis  own  handwriting.  Mr.  Doolittle 
has  not  denied  their  genuineness.  He 
cannot,  for  they  are  open  to  the  inspec 
tion  of  all  who  are  familiar  with  his 
writing.  He  may  deny  the  statements 
of  Mr.  Conatty,  but  the  letters  prove 
themselves.  As  they  corroborate  the 
statements  of  Mr.  Conatty,  which  are 
sworn  to  before  a  notary  public,  the 
public  will  bn  inclined  to  believe  them 
true.  We  first  introduce  Mr.  Conatty, 
and  leave  him  to  tell  his  own  story  : 
STATE  OP  NEW  YORK, 

City  and  county  of  New  York,  ss  : 
Thomas  J.  Conatty,  being  duly  sworn,  de 
poses  and  says :  I  reside  and  have  resided 
since  the  fall  of  1865  in  NVw  York  city;  I  was 
appointed  to  a  clerkship  in  tiie  office  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  Washington 
D.  C.,  in  1863;  it  was  in  the  month  of  Janu 
ary;  I  resigned  my  position  there  in  Novem 
ber,  1864,  on  account  of  failing  health. 

HOW  A  COTTON  PERMIT  WAS  OBTAINED. 

I  leirned  about  this  ti'iietnat  many  gentle 
men  had  obtained  permits  from  the  President 
to  trade  in  cotton  in  the  Southern  States;  be 
lieving  it  was  a  favorable  opportunity  .for  a 
lame  business  operation,  I  applied,  through 
influential  friends  of  mi«e,  among  whom  was 
Hon.  J  R.  Doolittle,  then  United  States  Sen 
ator  from  Wisconsin,  to  the  President,  for 
such  a  permit ;  I  subsequently  obtained  the 
permit  to  trade  in  cotton  in  the  States  of  Ala 
bama,  Mississippi,  Georgia,  Texas,  and 
Louisiana  ;  I  hid  not  seen  Senator  Doolittle 
for  two  or  three  weeks  after  obtaining  it, ;  I 
never  meditated  making  Senator  Doolittle 
any  offer  or  consideration  for  any  service  he 
may  have  done  me  before  or  after  1  obtained 
it,  because  I  had  too  exalted  an  opinion  of 
his  character,  nor  had  I  any  idea  he  exp°cted 
any  recompense  from  me'up  to  the  time  of 
the  following  occurrence: 

HOW  DOOLITTLE  GOT   A  QUARTER  INTEREST. 

Some  two  or  three  weeks  after  I  obtained 


street-car  in  Washington,  and  told  him  I  had 
obtained  it.  He  congratulated  me  on  the 
successful  termination  of  the  matter.  He  re 
flected  a  little,  and  said  nothing  further  ex- 
cept  to  ask  me  to  call  at  his  committee  room 
in  the  Senate  the  next  morning.  I  called 
the  next  morning,  in  accordance  with  his  re 
quest.  On  that  occasion  he  said  substan 
tially,  "You  have  a  good  thing  and  will  make 
a  pile  of  money,  and  can  afford  to  be  a  little 
generous."  I  did  not  know  what  he  meant. 
Fie  then  said  to  me  in  substance,  "You  know 
I  am  a  poor  man,  and  have  nwt  made  any 
money  since  I  have  been  in  public  life.  I 
think  you  can  afford  to  let  me  share  in  the 
proceeds,  and  be  none  the  poorer."  And  with 
this  he  handed  me  the  letter  hereto  attached, 
marked  letter  No.  1,  which  he  said  he  had 
scribbled  off,  wishing  rne  to  copy  and  send  it 
to  him  as  my  own.  At  the  same  time  he 
handed  me  letter  No.  2,  hereto  attached,  dated 
the  following  day,  which  he  said  would  be  his 
response  to  my  generous  offer  contained  in 
letter  No.  1.  I  was  too  much  surprised  to 
make  any  response.  I  took  these  two  letters 
from  his  office  with  me  to  Baltimore,  where 
I  then  resided.  Next  day  I  copied  letter 
marked  No.  1,  changing  the  phraseology  of 
one  of  the  sentences  referring  to  myself  that 
would  be  indelicate  had  they  co  ne  from  me 
His  reply  I  had  already  received,  as  stated 
above,  having  retained  both  letters  in  my 
possession.  This  was  substantially  all  that 
occurred  on  that  occasion. 

HOW    THE    SENATOR    HELPED  HIS    PARTNER 
AND  HIMSELF. 

On  the  30th  of  December  I  left  Washington 
for  New  York  city,  and  received,  while  at  the 
Astor  House,  on  or  about  the  1st  of  January, 
through  the  post  office,  letter  No.  3,  hereto 
attached,  and  accompanying  it  letter  No.  4, 
also  hereto  attached,  introducing  m^  to  Gen 
eral  Banks,  both  in  the  same  inclosure.  Gen 
eral  Banks  was  then  about  to  proceed  to 
Louisiana  as  commander  of  the  Federal 
forces  in  the  Department  of  the  Gulf,  and 
could  have  been  of  essential  service  in  this 
cotton  operation.  While  I  was  in  New  York 
I  learned  that  some  change  had  been  made  in 
the  list  of  articles  which  were  prohibited  from 
being  exchanged  for  cotton,  and  I  wrote  to 
Senator  Doolittle  to  get  for  me.  from  the  War 
Department  a  list  of  the  prohibited  ar'icles. 
In  response  I  received,  while  still  in  New  York, 
letter  No.  5,  hereto  annexed.  Subsequently, 
in  the  carrying  out  of  this  enterprise,  I  pro 
ceeded  to  New  Orleans,  and  in  the  month  of 
May,  1865,  presented  this  letter  of  introduc 
tion  to  General  Banks  in  New  Orleans.  Gen 
eral  Banks  received  me  kindly,  and  after 
reading  the  letter  handed  it  back  to  me.  say 
ing  "this  might  be  of  some  future  service  to 
you."  1  said  it  might,  and  took  it. 

THOMAS  J.  CONATTY. 

Sworn  to  before  me  this  loth  d.ty  of    Au 
gust,  1872.  M.  M.  BUDLONG, 
Notary  Public, New  York  city  and  county. 

In  the  presence  of  Thos.  Franklin  S«tith. 

LETTERS. 

[The  letter  which  Doolittle  himself  wrote 
for  Conatty  to  serd  to  him — the  original  in 
Doolittle's  hand  writing.] 
No.  1.]  WASHINGTON,  Dec.  29, 1804. 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  been  engaged  for  two 
years  past  in  the  Treasury  Department, 
where  I  have  been  assiduously  f)t  work,  early 
and  late,  until  I  seriously  feared  my  health 
might  give  way. 


6 


fidelity  there  has  inspired  in  the  head  of  the  I 
department,  I  have  received  a  permit  to  trade  | 
and  to  purchase  cotton  to  the  amount  of  fifty 
thousand  bales. 

This  has  been  freely  given  me  ;  and  now, 
my  dear  sir,  allow  me  to  say  that  during  all 
my  stay  here  I  have  witnessed  on  your'part 
in  the  high  position  you  occupy  the  same 
fidelity,  and,  I  may  add,  such  a  position  and 
course  of  conduct  that  my  heart  has  been 
drawn  out  to  you  ;  arid,  as  this  permit  may 
enable  me  to" realize  a  great  fortune— to'o 
great  to  be  properly  administered  or  enjoyed 
by  any  one  man — 1  have  determined  that,  as 
a' present  on  my  part,  and  in  the  belief  that 
you  could  better  use  a  portion,  should  I  be 
successful,  than  I  could  use  all,  I  will  remit 
to  you  the  one-fourth  part  of  all  the  profits  1 
may  realize  over  and  above  all  my  expenses. 
I  do  this  in  the  hope  that,  while  I  may  be 
come  rich  in  this  operation,  I  may  secure  to 
you  a  competency  also. 

Hon.  J.  R.  DOOLITTLE. 

When  he  handed  Mr.  Conatty  the 
above  letter  to  copy  and  return,  he  also 
handed  him  the  reply  to  it,  dated  De 
cember  31,  1864.  The  following  is  the 
model  reformer's  reply: 

[Private  and  confidential.] 

No.  2.]  WASHINGTON,  Dec.  31,  18G4. 

MY  DP:  AK  SIR  :  Your  magnanimous  propo 
sition,  contained  in  your  letter  from  Balti 
more  of  yesterday,  fills  my  heart  vyith  feel 
ings  which  I  cannot  express.  Such  instances 
of  disinterested  friendship  are  so  rare,  so  few 
among  the  sons  of  men  are  endowed  with 
such  a  high  and  noble  generosity  that  I  am 
without  words  to  tell  you  how  much  it  affects 
you  [me..] 

I  h'<we  no  claims  upon  you  except  those 
of  a  disinterested  friendship  sincerely  cher 
ished.  -As  to  this  permit  to  trade  in  cotton, 
you  have  obtained  it  without  any  word,  or  in 
fluence,  or  thought  of  mine,  even  direct  or  in 
direct,  for  until  your  communication  to  me  1 
never  had  any  knowledge,  or  thought  even, 
that  you  contemplated  such  a  thing. 

And  yet  this  fact  alone,  which  gives  me  no 
claim  upon  you,  is  the  only  possible  ground 
upon  which  I  accept  your  generous,  1  will 
say  more,  your  most  magnanimous  offer. 

Had  I  aided  you  in  the  least,  directly  or  in 
directly,  in  thought,  word  or  deed,  I  could 
not  have  accepted  it  if  I  would,  and  I  would 
not  if  1  could. 

I  hope  you  may  realize  your  sanguine  ex 
pectations,  and  be  able  to  place  yourself, 
without  injury  to  any  other  human  being,  in 
a  condition  of  peciin'ary  independence,  so 
that  when  this  fearful  war  is  over  you  may 
retire,  to  private  life,  again  to  cultivate  those 
literary  pursuits  you  so  much  love,  and  whlcl 
are  more  precious,  after  all,  than  gold  and  sil 
ver.  And  should  your  success  be  such  that 
in  the  munificence  of  your  proposition  you 
can  enable  me  to  do  the  same,  you  will  con 
fer  a  great  benefit  upon  your  sincere  friend, 
J.  II.  DOOLITTLE. 

T.  G.  CONATTY,  Esq. 

Having  arranged  his  quarter  interest 
to  his  own  satisfaction,  he  has  an  inter 
view  with  Gen.  Banks,  who  was  soon  to 
assume  command  in  the  cotton  regions. 
After  this  inverview  he  sends  thefollow- 
ing  to  his  partner  in  the  speculation: 

[Confident!  1.] 

No.  3.]  WASHINGTON,  Dec.  31,  1864. 

DEAR  Sin:  1  saw  General  Banks,    lie  will 

rmf  l^av^  until    flrmm-p^  rniU't-i         HH  wishes 


tb  see  Louisiana  admitted,  or  the  way  sure  for 
her  admission. 

Probably  you  had  not  better  waifc»for  him. 

You  can  write  me  fully  and  freely  when 
fou  get  on  to  the  ground.  I  will,  if  you  re- 
nit  to  me,  purchase  bonds  for  you  here  or  at 
New  York,  according  to  arrangement.  Isup- 
3ose  you  wish  to  make  permanent  invest- 
nents  of  the  funds  if  you  realize  them. 

I  send  you  a  letter  to  Banks.  Write,  and 
lot  only  aboufr  business,  but  about  the  state 
of  things  generally. 

May  God  bless  and  prosper  you,  will  be  the 
arnest  prayer  of  yours,  sincerely, 

J.  11.  DOOLITTLE. 

T.  J.  CONATTY-,  E-q. 

At  the  same  time  he  sends  the  follow 
ing  letter  of  introduction  to  Gen.  Banks: 
No.  4.1  WASHINGTON,  Dec.  31,  1864. 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Allow  me  to  introduce  to 
your  acquaintance,  and  to  your  entire  confi 
dence,  Mr.  T.  J.  Conatty,  who  for  the  last  two 
years  has  been  assiduously  at  work  in  the 
Treasury  Department;  so  assiduously  that 
his  health  has  been  somewhat  threatened. 
He  visits  New  Orleans  upon  a  matter  of 
great  importance,  n»t  only  to  himself,  hut  to 
the  public  welfare — the  reopening  practically 
of  the  cotton  trade.  He  is  a  gentleman  of 
high  character,  and  one  whom  I  feel  assured 
you  will  be  clad  to  know,  and,  so  far  as  may 
be  compatible  with  your  official  duty,  to  aid 
in  Ms  undertaking.  With  full  faith  that  we, 
shall  overcome  the  rebellion  in  the  end,  ai:d 
with  assurance  of  ray  high  personal  regard 
for  you,  I  remain,  sincerely  yours, 

J.  R.  DOOLITTLE. 

Major  General  N.  P.  BANKS. 

In  order  to  make  the  speculation  a  per 
fect  success  he  calls  at  the  War  Depart 
ment  and  Treasury  to  obtain  all  the  in 
formation  possible.  As  United  States 
Senator,  he  had  access  to  records  beyond 
the  reach  of  common  speculators.  He 
sends  the  following  note  to  Couatty: 
No.  fi.]  JANUARY  4,  1865. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  saw  D  nn.  ani  St-inton 
and  the  Treasury  about  the  list  of  articles. 

The  War  Department  made  out  a  list.  It 
was  sent  to  the  Treasury.  They  suggested 
some  alterations.  It  was  sent  buck  to  Stan- 
ton.  It  lies  still  on  his  table  unacted  on.  I 
will  forward  a  copy  just  as  soon  as  possible 
to  you  at  New  Orleans.  Probably  the  news 
papers  will  contain  it. 

As  ever,  yours,          J.  R.  DOOLITTLE. 
T.  J.  CONATTY. 

The  following  will  explain  the  nature 
of  the  trans  iction  brought  abonc  by  the 
disinterested  friendship  and  official  activ 
ity  of  Mr.  Doolittle,  the  model  Greeley 
reformer  from  Wisconsin: 

THE  PERMIT. 

Under    the    system    adopted,  the    papers 
known  as  a  permit  were  as  follows  :  On  No 
vember  17,  1804,   H.  A.  Risley,    "agent  au 
thorized  to  purchase  for  the,  United  States 
products  of  States  declared  in  insurrection," 
made  a  contract   with    D.   P.   Moore,  T.  J. 
Conatty,  and  William  Helmish,  comprising 
the  firm  of  Moore,  Conatty  &  Co.,  bv  which 
the  latter  agreed  to  sell  to  the.  United  States 
.  50,000  bales  of  cotton,  "product  of  the,  States 
I  of  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and    Mississippi,  to 
be  transported  by  the  way  of  the  Mississippi 
river  and  its  tributaries,  and  delivered  to" 
an  a  gent  of  the  Government,  to  be  sold,  or 
sent  to  New  York  for  sale.   After  paying,  ex- 


penses,  one-fourth  of  the  proceeds  were  to 
belong  to  the  United  States,  and  three- fourths 
to  \[oore,  Conatty  &  Co.  On  January  21, 
IStir.,  Moore,  with  the  consent  of  the  Govern 
ment,  assigned  his  interest  to  Conatty.  Coin 
cident  with  the  date  of  the  contract  a  free 
conduct  was  given  hy  Mr.  Risley,  and  also  a 
document  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy: 
EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  Nov.  17, 1804. 

An  authorized  agent- of  the  Treasury  De 
partment  bavins?,  with  the  approval  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  contracted  for  the 
cotton  above  mentioned,  and  the  parties  hav 
ing  agreed  to  sell  and  deliver  the  same  to 
such  agent— 

It  is  orcLrcd  tluvfc  cotton  moving  in  compll- 
«?ice  with  and  for  fulfillment  of  said  con 
tract,  and  being  transported  to  such  agent, 
or  under  his  direction,  shall  be  free  from 
seizure  or  detention,  by  any  officer  of  the 
Government;  and  commandants  of  military 
departments,  districts,  posts,  and  detach 
ments,  naval  stations,  gun-boats,  flotillas, 
and  fleets,  will  observe  and  obey  this  order, 
and  give  the  said  Moore,  Conatty  &  Co., 
their  agents  and  transports,  free  and  unob 
structed  pissage  for  the  purpose  of  getting 
said  cotton,  or  any  part  thereof,  through  the 
lines,  other  than  blockaded  lines,  and  safe 
conduct  within  our  lines  while  the  sa'me  is 
moving  in  compliance  with  regulations  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  for  fulfillment 
of  said  contract  with  the  agent  of  the  Gov 
ernment.  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

Can  any  honest  citizen  have  faith  in  a 
reform  movement  engineered  by  Doo- 
little  &  Co?  Is  their  testimony  against 
an  honest  administration  entitled  to 
weight?  YV* leave  these  questions  for 
the  people  to  answer. 


JOHN  F.  FARNSWORTII. 

Why  he  supports  Greeley — What  his  con 
stituents  think  of  him — The  market  value 
of  Patriotism — Receives  $1,500  for  send 
ing  his  regiment  over  the  Pittsburg  and 
Fort  Wayne  Road. 
John  F.  Faiyisworth,  the  model  re 
former  from  Illinois,  who  has  misrepre 
sented  his  district  in  the  House  of  Rep 
resentatives  for  some  time  past,  has  at 
last  reached  his  proper  level.  Repudi 
ated  by  his  constituents,  without  influ 
ence  in  the  party  he  seeks  to  betray,  his 
political  salvation  depends  on  the  suc 
cess  of  the  Greeley  movement.  His  char 
acter  as  a  politician  is  best  illustrated 
by  his  position  up  to  the  action  of  the 
convention  which  denied  him  a  reno mi- 
nation.  He  assured  his  friends  that  he 
was  in  favor  of  Grant  and  his  policy. 
They  worked  for  him  under  this  belief, 
but; failed  to  sustain  his  sinking  fortunes. 
He  was  defeated  by  the  convention  and 
soon  after  openly  espoused  the  cause  of 
Mr.  Greeley.  Fifty-six  of  the  d<  1 
who  had  stood  by  him  in  the  convention, 
residents  of  .Kane  county,  Illinois,  have 
addressed  him  a  letter  in  which  they 
prove  him  guilty  of  deliberate  treachery, 
and  say,  in  concluding,  that  they  "he- 
lieve  that  John  F.  Far  ns  worth  has,  forthe 
hope  of  office,  sacrificed  all  that  is  noble 
in  man,  viz:  Honor,  honesty  and  truth.' 
We  [might  leave  this  latter-day  con- 


vert  to  Greeley  ism  just  where  his  con 
stituents  left  him— devoid  of  honor,  hon- 
;sty,  and  truth,  but  we  have  an  item  to 
^resent  which  ought  to  go  to  his  credit 
is  it  belongs  to  an  important  chapter  in 
lis  patriotic  record.     We  take  the  fol- 
owing  extract  from  the  report  of  the 
Select  Committee  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  appointed  to  investigate  con- 
racts   and  agreements   by  or  with  the 
government,  growing  out  of  its  opera- 
ions  in  suppressing  the  rebellion,  made 
to  the  House  December   18,  1861.— [Re 
port  No.  2,  37th  Cong.  ,2d  sess.,  page  109.] 
CHICAGO,  November  3,  1861. 

Henry  K.  Peyson,  being  duly  sworn,  was  • 
examined  as  follows: 

Question.  State  what  connection  you  had 
with  the  Pittsburg  and  Fort  Wayne  railroad? 
— Answer.  I  was  the  attorney  and  agent  of 
the  receiver  of  the  road. 

Q.  What  regiments  from  this  State  have 
passed  over  this  road? — A.  The  only  one  I 
had  anything  to  do  with  was  that  of  J.  F. 
Far  ns  worth. 

Q.  Upon  what  terms  was  that  regiment 
passed  over  your  road?— A.  At  the  regular 
Government  price. 

Q.  What  influences,  if  any,  were  used  to 
Obtain  the  transportation  of  that  regiment 
Ovr  your  road?— A.  81,500  were  given. 

Q  By  whom  was  it  given,  and  to  whom? — 
A.  It  was  given  by  me  to  Colonel  Farmworth. 

Q  For  what  purpose?— A.  As  an  induce- 
ment,undoubtedly,forhimtogooverourroad. 

Q.  Where  was  that  payment  made? — A.  In 
Chicago. 

8.  At  what  time?— A.  Before  his  departure. 
„.  What  negotiation  was  there  previous  to 
this  contract  being  made? — A.  We  are  the 
nearest  route  to  Washington,  by  considerable, 
and  the  most  expeditious,  by  a  great  deal,  as 
any  one  knows  who  knows  our  facilities. 
When  the  troops  first  commenced  moving 
from  Wisconsin  I  was  in  NVw  York,  and  we 
lost  the  first  five  regiments  from  that  State.  I 
was  confident  we  lost  them  through  bribery. 
The  first  three  regiments  went  by  the  way  of 
Dunkirk  and  Erie,  and,  while  they  might  have 
gone  through  in  two  days,  they  were  over  a 
week  upon  the  road.  The  next  regiment  went 
by  the  Michigan  Southern  road,  and  down  hy 
Cleveland  and  Pittsburg.  We  found  thr,t  mo 
ney  was  being  paid  and  thatall  the  regiments 
were  being  taken  away  from  us.  1  wrote  to  Mr. 
Cass,  the  president  of  the  road,  about  it,  and 
he  wrote  back  that  he  was  not  willing  to  pay 
money  to  secure  them.  I  wrote  him  that  I 
was  not  going  to  sit  liere  and  see  all  the  regi 
ments  lost  to  us,  and  that  I  should  offer  as 
high  as  any  one.  I  did  so,  and  that  was  the 
commencement  of  our  business  in  that  line. 
Since  then  we  have  always  got  the  regiments. 

Q.  What  were  the  negotiations  between  you 
and  Col.  Farns  worth?— A.  Simply  what  I  tfave 
stated.  I  made  the  offer  of  that  amount  and  he 
accepted  it,and  the  money  was  paid  before  the 
regiment  left,  but  after  they  were,  in  the  cars. 

The  loss  of  such  a  man  to  a  party  is 
the  party's  gain.  Like  his  brother  re 
formers,  he  left  the  Republican  party 
when  lie  found  that  within  its  ranks  he 
could  no  longer  carry  out  his  corrupt 
designs.  lie  had  lost  his  former  influ 
ence  with  the  Administration  because 
he  had  by  his  own  acts  forfeited  its  con 
fidence.  He  still  clung  to  its  skirts,  in 


thevain  hope  that  his  constituents  would 
return  him  to  Congress.  But  they  repu 
diated  him  as  an  unworthy  servant,  and 
this  last  straw  broke  the  rotten  link  that 
bound  him  to  the  "Republican  party. 
He  threw  off  the  mask  and  came  out  in 
1m  true  colors,  a  sham  reformer  by  na 
ture  and  practice. 

FREDERICK  HASSAUREK, 

EDITOR  CINCINNATI  u  VOLKSBLATT." 

How  he  supports  reform — A  thrifty  specu 
lator  in  politics. 

Hon.  Frederick  Hassaurek,  editor  of 
the  Volkxblatt.  formerly  United  States 
Minister  Resident  to  Ecuador,  a  man  of 
ability,  whosn  neighbors  know  him  too 
well,  has  recently  pronounced  for  Gree- 
ley  and  Brown,  after  having  kept  per 
sonally  silent  since  the  Cincinnati  Con 
vention,  and  as  an  editor  preserved 
strict  neutrality.  There  appears  to  have 
been  a  reason  for  this  silence,  and  there 
are  probably  fifteen  thousand  or  more 
in  the  shape  of  dollars  for  his  sudden 
volubility.  Mr.  Hassaurek  is  not  only 
careful  of  his  purse,  but  of  his  reputa 
tion  also— as  an  effective  stump  speaker, 
His  campaign  pronunciamento,  deliv 
ered  recently,  near  Cincinnati,  was 
printed  and  sent  out  a  week  in  ad 
vance,"  carefully  arranged  with  appro 
priate  marks  of  approval  and  ap 
plause,  to  the  number  of  seventy  times, 
where  applause,  cheers,  laughter,  etc., 
were  in  the  author's  opinion,  sure  to 
come  in.  Mr.  Hassaurek  is  claimed  to 
be  ftn  important  addition  to  the  ranks 
of  pronounced  reformers;  hence  the 
justification  for  examining  into  the 
basis  of  such  pretensions.  Here  are 
some  pertinent  facts : 

During  th«  early  part  of  August,  two 
Ohio  Republicans,  known  as  active  poli 
ticians,  appeared  in  Washington,  and 
urged  with  all  the  influence  they  could 
bring  to  bear,  that  the  Republican  Com 
mittee  should  aid  in  raising  $15,000  to 
fce  paid  to  Editor  Hassaurek.  They 
stated  that  the  latter  had  sometime  be 
fore  offered  his  services  as  a  speaker  on 
behalf  of  C4rant  and  Wilson,  with  the 
influence  of  the  VblksblaU  thrown  in, 
for  the  sum  of  $30,000.  It  was  also  un 
derstood  that  a  stated  number  of  copies 
of  the  Volksblatt  were  to  be  circulated 
gratuitously.  After  considerable  dick 
ering,  the  amount  was  reduced  one 
half,  and  this  our  Ohio  friends,  acting 
for  themselves,  undertook  to  raise.  The 
Washington  managers,  who  act  for  their 
party,  if  at  all,  at  once  declared  they  were 
not  in  that  business;  purchased  services 
wore  always  untrustworthy.  New  York 
was  then  made  the  fit-Id  of  effort,  and  it  is 
understood  that  private  parties  offered 
to  guarantee  $2,500  monthly  for  four 
months,  making  $10.000  in  all.  Again 
the  attempt  was  made  to  induce  the 
Washington  Committee  to  add  the  $5,000 
wanting  to  complete  what  Mr.  Hassau 
rek  required  for  his  valuable  services. 


The  Committee,  however,  absolutely  re 
fused  to  do  anything  about  it,  and  the 
negotiation  fell-through.  Some  attempts 
were  made  from  Ohio  to  change  the  com 
mittee's  decision,  ft  is  needless  to  say 
that  these  efforts  failed,  as  Mr.  Hassau 
rek  soon  after  cast  in  his  lot  with 
|  Greeley  and  Brown.  The  foregoing 
j  statements  are  matters  of  fact,  and  can 
I  be  established,  if  necessary.  The  Cin 
cinnati  Gtzelte  says  editorially: 

The  fact  thitsncn  negotiations  were  pend 
ing  was  wnll  known  to  several  persons  here, 
and  strong  objections  were  m.irte  by  many 
leading  Republicans,  on  the  ground  that  they 
were  demoralizing,  anrl  if  not  so,  II  tssaurvk 
was  not  worth  even  his  reduce  1  price.  The 
whole  matter  was  frequently  discussed  here 
for  some  time  before  he  made  his  Giveloy 
speech  at  A.von<iale. 

Mr.  Hassaurek  is  a  worthy  addition 
to  the  reform  ranks.  Of  him,  like  others 
herein  mentioned,  and  some  whom  it  is 
unnecessary  to  name,  after  November 
next,  it  will  be  written,  "in  life  they 
were  (un)  lovely,  and  in  death  they 
should  not  be  parted." 

Citizens  of  the  Republic,  what  think 
you  of  these  reformers  ?  Is  the  party 
which  owns  these  men  as  leaders 
worthy  of  support?  Can  any  good  come 
from  an  administration  guided  by  such 
hands"?  If  honesty  and  economy  are 
needed,  can  such  characters  insure 
them?  What  they  have  been  in  the  past 
they  are  likely  to  be  in  the  future.  An 
impure  fountain  cannot  give  forth  pure 
water,  neither  can  any  substantial  re 
formation  come  from  th«  elevation  to 
power  of  these  leading  reformers.  They 
are  fair  representatives  of  the  party  they 
labor  for.  The  few  honest  men. in  its 
ranks  are  lost  sight  of  in  the  crowd  of 
hungry  and  unprincipled  office-seekers 
that  howl  for  its  success.  Reform  is  a 
pretext  with  these  unprincipled  lead 
ers — public  plunder  their  object.  Foiled 
in  th»ir  attempts  to  use  the  Republican 
party  for  the  advancement  of  their  sel 
fish  ends,  they  have  left  it  for  another 
party  of  their  owp  creation.  They  have 
chosen  a  pliant  character  for  their  head 
and  front,  and  hope  to  deceive  the  peo 
ple  into  the  belief  that  they  are  in  reality 
the  friends  of  good  government.  The 
people  have  already  unmasked  them. 
They  have  investigated  the  charges  pre 
ferred  against  the  present  Administra 
tion  and  have  found  them  false.  They 
will  consign  in  November  these  leaders, 
with  the  slanders  which  they  have  ut 
tered,  to  the  same  grave  which  awaits 
the  party  that  fostered  them. 

The  Republican  party,  purer  and  bet 
ter,  through  the  desertion  of  these  false 
reformers,  will  go  on  in  its  path  of  duty 
filling  its  noble  mission  of  plnlanthrophy 
and  justice.  It  will  come  out  of  the  con 
flict  granderthan  ever,  its  past  triumphs 
brightened  by  its  future  promises  and 
itsgood  name  and  thatof  its  noble  leader, 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  enemies  of  tne 
Republic. 


J.C.  BERKE  EY  I IBRA 


